Harvard scientist is arrested, accused of lying about ties to China

https://www.npr.org/2020/01/28/800442646/acclaimed-harvard-scientist-is-arrested-accused-of-lying-about-ties-to-china

by georgecmu • 6 years ago

338 187 6 years ago

tehjoker3• 6 years ago

Last time, I said this was corporate fears of losing money dressed up as xenophobia and got pushback. Now the spooks are just stating it outright.

Chinese and American scientists have more in common with each other than we do with the elites that run the government and corporations to the detriment of the population.

We should loudly denounce the government interfering with free scientific exchange and funding. Science isn't a competition; it's meant to benefit all of us regardless of nationality.

Edit: Last time they were messing with a researcher that was working on cancer treatments. They were worried he'd "steal" cancer treatments and give them to Chinese people! The nerve!

mattmcknight• 6 years ago

"We should loudly denounce the government interfering with free scientific exchange and funding" $18M his funding was from the government (NIH and DoD). With those grants he agreed to disclose foreign funding sources. He failed to do so.

vibrio• 6 years ago

Agreed, this is made clear in the process of NIH, DoD funding. Initially I thought prosecutors and media wasre overreacting, but the scale of both the foreign funding sources and NIH DoD funding is not something that anyone could overlook unintentionally. Its a shame for such and accomplished scientist.

tehjoker3• 6 years ago

Without hearing his side, I am skeptical. It might be he didn't disclose because he knew that he'd be penalized for taking money from his home country. I don't know, but my skepticism when it comes to "national security" and nations they want us to think of as the enemy requires an extremely high bar.

edit: sorry got the scientist's nationality wrong.

ng12• 6 years ago

Wait, are you trying to cast the guy who got paid millions of dollars to assist a foreign government as "one of the little guys"?

farazbabar• 6 years ago

I wish things were as simple as this, however scientists' desire to share and collaborate stands directly at odds with state actors desire to access the technology differentiators. Would be nice to live in a world where these technologies weren't deployed against other humans (on all sides) but that is not the reality we live in.

baseballdork2• 6 years ago

I don't get this sentiment at all. China is notorious for stealing IP, they're a major military player (threat), and this professor lied about his ties to China and still worked on DoD funded projects. The government reaction seems pretty reasonable.

tehjoker3• 6 years ago

Many many projects are DoD funded and have little to nothing to do with immediate military applications. China is a threat to US hegemony in its own backyard, but to state that China is a threat to actual US citizens is kind of absurd. We're over there, they're not over here!

blackrock• 6 years ago

What exactly is the Chinese “threat” here?

Are they going to send a nuclear-powered aircraft carrier loaded with soldiers to invade the shores of Seattle and Los Angeles? And then claim the mainland United States as their own property?

HarryHirsch• 6 years ago

Do you really think any student gets near anything that could remotely impact national security without a background check?

This is Charles Lieber's latest paper: http://cml.harvard.edu/assets/Nanowire-probes-could-drive-hi...

It's a review article on nanowires, and in the acknowledgements an Air Force is listed, obviously because a student's salary is funded by the Air Force. The guy is stupider than the FBI permits but there is no reason to drift into xenophobia.

inimino• 6 years ago

Accepting hundreds of thousands or millions of dollars and then lying to your university, the DoD, and NIH about it has nothing to do with "free scientific exchange".

dfee• 6 years ago

As an alternative to the only other comment here, dressing this up as xenophobia:

The arrangement between Lieber and the Chinese institution spanned "significant" periods of time between at least 2012 and 2017, according to the affidavit. It says the deal called for Lieber to be paid up to $50,000 a month, in addition to $150,000 per year "for living and personal expenses."
"Lieber was also awarded more than $1.5 million by WUT and the Chinese government to establish a research lab and conduct research at WUT," the document states.
For a large part of the time frame in question, Lieber was also the principal investigator on at least six U.S. Defense Department research grants, with a cumulative value of more than $8 million, according to the affidavit. It also says he was the principal investigator on more than $10 million in grants funded by the National Institutes of Health.

m0zg3• 6 years ago

I remember just a few weeks ago there was a story on HN of a Russian scientist working on a government project "sharing" some research on hypersonic weapons with a NATO affiliated university somewhere in Europe. In the thread there I said a US scientist would get his ass thrown in jail in the US under the circumstances, which was downvoted.

It will be interesting to study the difference between that case and this one. So far the tone I'm seeing here is markedly different, and most people seem to be justifying the position of the DOJ.

unishark4• 6 years ago

Based on your description it sounds pretty different. In this case the professor is charged with lying to get funding.

jashephe2• 6 years ago

The conspiracy theorist in me can't help but wonder if "leaking" forged documents of this nature could be an effective way for China or another foreign government to sabotage the leaders of the American research enterprise.

Of course, my inner cynic is leaning pretty heavily towards Occam's razor for this one.

arcticfox3• 6 years ago

That would be pretty straightforward to dismiss with full transparency by the alleged perpetrator. There's definitely going to be corroborating evidence.

jashephe2• 6 years ago

Oh, absolutely. I guess I was wondering if accusations alone would serve to substantially inconvenience or embitter individual scientists, or decrease public trust in academic research and academicians in general. Not trying to suggest that this case specifically is some foreign plot.

taneq• 6 years ago

Not if that full transparency uncovered further forged documents which corroborated the accusations. If we're assuming a full on intelligence operation here then that wouldn't be significantly harder to pull off. After a couple more pieces of evidence the story would support itself and any inconsistencies would be blamed on the target's own attempts to cover up.

duxup5• 6 years ago

These grants require the disclosure of significant foreign financial conflicts of interest, including financial support from foreign governments or foreign entities

Meanwhile:

paid up to $50,000 a month, in addition to $150,000 per year

Seems pretty straightforward.

He must be a smart guy, I wonder how he thought he would get away with it?

Even if he could hide the money run of the mill espionage could find it.

He was supposed to do research at Wuhan University and even file for parents for and sort of promote that school. Hard to imagine nobody would notice that.

I wonder if he kept taking the money after he told investigators that he wasn't a part of the program? He had to suspect they were on to him?

droithomme2• 6 years ago

He's a smart guy. Maybe not wise or ethical though.

While no one figures it out, China wins.

When some one figures it out, US loses a top researcher.

Win-win for China. Why wouldn't they play this game? It's a guaranteed win.

tgtweak• 6 years ago

Additionally, it's systematic, from the article and in the same week:

Yanqing Ye, 29, who is currently in China, is charged with one count each of "visa fraud, making false statements, acting as an agent of a foreign government and conspiracy." She had been working at Boston University and is accused of lying about her position as a lieutenant in the Chinese military.

Zaosong Zheng, 30, was arrested last month at Boston's Logan International Airport and is charged with allegedly attempting to smuggle vials of biological materials and other research materials stolen from U.S labs. Zheng, who was a a Harvard-sponsored cancer researcher, has been indicted on that charge along with a count of making false statements.

m0zg3• 6 years ago

Professor != researcher. It's more like a research manager. Not a huge loss to the field.

stanferder• 6 years ago

While no one figures it out, China wins.

Do they though? If China is hiring people who don't honestly fulfill their disclosure requirements, it may be the case that they're getting people who fake research results as well. They're actually selecting for low levels of integrity.

cm21873• 6 years ago

I don’t think the article suggests China did anything nefarious, other than paying a US professor to do some research in China and help develop a university in China. Which in my opinion is what every other country should try to do with good foreign researchers. In this case the game seems to be played by the researcher.

jcampbell1• 6 years ago

In 2012, he agreed to accept what he likely considered prize money and renting his name as an endorsement. I doubt he did much work for WUT. Fast forward to today and the Thousand Talents Program is considered an espionage tool by the US Senate, and when he is asked about it, he lies to both Harvard and the DoD. He is in deep shit.

I think how much trouble he is in is going to come down to whether he notified the IRS of the Chinese bank accounts. There is nothing juries hate more than millionaires who cheat on their taxes and it will look terrible if he hid the money.

cat1993• 6 years ago

In 2012, he agreed to accept what he likely considered prize money and renting his name as an endorsement.

If you are a tenured/tenure-track professor at a tier-1 research university, your name is literally your career - you don't rent this out lightly on some whim. You also don't take money from another institution to create the 'X+Y University Collaborative Research Lab' without running this by legal.

Further, the affidavit outlines more involved collaboration (co-advising / hosting / advising students, $800k to build a joint-lab etc).

datashow4• 6 years ago

I guess the story is that when he started in 2012 he thought nobody cares. Actually he got it right at that time. Although it was violation of government rules, nobody really cared at that time.

He could not predict the change of direction of the U.S. foreign policy. China is taking place of Russia as the No. 1 threat. How could he predict this in 2012?

BTW, I am curious to know did he pay tax for those income? If not, that will be another very serious problem.

jorblumesea3• 6 years ago

He could not predict the change of direction of the U.S. foreign policy. How could he predict this in 2012?

This isn't really that relevant, all he had to do was disclose his connections. It's not the crime, it's the cover up. The US govt certainly understands hundreds if not thousands of academics have connections to China. It's not a crime to accept research money. It's lying about it that's the issue. If you're lying to the country about who you work for, what else are you lying about?

wolco• 6 years ago

Wasn't China the #1 fear in 2012. More around the economy taking over/high growth rates / pegged currency. Russia only came back in vogue after Trump/election.

sailfast3• 6 years ago

He lied on a sworn affidavit, basically, when going out for his grants which includes a background check. You swear your statements to be true. He lied. It doesn’t matter what country is in vogue at the time, and in 2012 China was very much considered a threat for these exact kinds of things.

This is pretty black and white, assuming the evidence presented is legit, which he will have the opportunity to oppose in court.

mrits• 6 years ago

The president of the US in 2012 made fun of his opposition for calling Russia a serious national security threat.

duxup5• 6 years ago

I have a real hard time getting past "oh well nobody cares now I'll just lie to U.S. Defense Department....".

If you're lying to them, maybe someone cares.

Barrin92• 6 years ago

The talks about China as a serious geopolitical rival go back a while longer than 2012, but even so, if he was completely unaware of any potential conflict of interest then he obviously could have disclosed this funding.

The fact that he hid it I think makes very clear that he was aware of the problematic nature of taking that money.

jeffdavis2• 6 years ago

It might be a misunderstanding about our legal system and what is a serious issue versus one that can be overlooked or patched up somehow.

Maybe like a foolish US tourist taking some recreational drugs to China?

(I'm not comparing the two issues in a moral way, just to show how different crimes can be minor/serious in different countries.)

duxup5• 6 years ago

I'm not sure what is misunderstanding about lying on some paperwork. It's still lying, they know they're lying.

onetimemanytime• 6 years ago

>Even if he could hide the money run of the mill espionage could find it.

According to the affidavit, there was a paper trail, contracts on both countries with a suspected spy agency, er University research department, etc etc. Not sure he knew what he really got into. Maybe did it once and then he got used to the money

koheripbal7• 6 years ago

I wonder how he thought he would get away with it?

Simple. Most institutions simply do not CHECK. Think about how you'd detect that this is happening. You'd need to somehow gain evidence that they hold a bank account that is receiving funds originating from China.

Not easy. In fact, damn near impossible.

So let's look at this case...

Lieber was also awarded more than $1.5 million by WUT and the Chinese government to establish a research lab and conduct research at Wuhan University of Technology.
For a large part of the time frame in question, Lieber was also the principal investigator on at least six U.S. Defense Department research grants

...ah ha. So the DoD caught him because he was being so blatant.

blaser-waffle2• 6 years ago

Not easy. In fact, damn near impossible.

Simply not true. FATCA is a thing, and the USG is comfortable hammering foreign banks for info. It's a lot harder with China, but they absolutely comply: https://www.china-briefing.com/news/china-agrees-fatca-compl...

This is also why that Chinese money goes to Canada (esp. Vancouver) -- the Canadian government doesn't dig as hard.

rasengan0• 6 years ago

Some context:

Original charge: https://www.justice.gov/usao-ma/pr/harvard-university-profes...

This one is safe at home: https://www.masslive.com/boston/2020/01/chinese-peoples-libe...

neya• 6 years ago

I was just watching this documentary the other day and I am actually not surprised. For anyone interested in this topic, should really have a look at this documentary:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zdR-I35Ladk

amacbride• 6 years ago

“In an affidavit unsealed Tuesday, FBI Special Agent Robert Plumb said Lieber, who led a Harvard research group focusing on nanoscience, had established a research lab at the Wuhan university — apparently unbeknownst to Harvard.”

This is pretty egregious, and it baffles me that he thought it would go undetected (or that his home institution wouldn’t object.)

Aperocky3• 6 years ago

He's wrong to not report conflict of interest on national defense funding, but how is establishing a lab elsewhere alone egregious?

Private research institutes, like corporations, don't own people who work for them.

droithomme2• 6 years ago

"These grants require the disclosure of significant foreign financial conflicts of interest, including financial support from foreign governments or foreign entities," the U.S. Attorney's Office in Massachusetts said in a statement announcing the charges against Lieber.

knzhou9• 6 years ago

I completely agree with you: collaboration is no crime in science. Obviously, we will both be downvoted to invisibility, because this site's users are fervent nationalists, not scientists.

sailfast3• 6 years ago

It’s not a conflict of interest, it’s a lie on a background check that likely would have lost him the DoD grants.

I don’t think anyone is saying “don’t establish a lab” but if someone asks you whether you’re being paid by foreign interests you can’t just say “I don’t know who the organization is that had been paying me for years.”

This has nothing to do with conflict of interest, outside of the conflicts between DoD and whether clearances / grants are released to those that are being paid by other nation states.

Canada• 6 years ago

The government alleges in the indictment that he signed a contract to setup a joint research lab between Harvard and the Chinese university without informing Harvard at all let alone obtaining its permission to enter the institution into such an agreement. It also alleges that he took all payments to a bank account in China or in cash when he traveled to China and took action to conceal the deal when Harvard and the government started asking questions about it.

If the allegations are true then he probably began by overstepping his authority at Harvard for his personal financial gain. He may have been reluctant to disclose the relationship as required for the US grants because doing so would have simultaneously disclosed to Harvard his egregious violation its policy, possibly resulting in termination of his employment.

Maybe he was hiding the money from the IRS as well, giving him further motive to conceal and deny.

Had he entered into the agreement strictly personally then he almost certainly would have told Harvard which would have disclosed it to the government. Maybe the Chinese sponsors wouldn't have offered as much money for that. Alternatively, he could have asked Harvard to enter into the agreement through the proper channels, but then in that case surely the university would be getting the money and not the professor personally.

koheripbal7• 6 years ago

Importantly, he was working on multiple US DoD grants at the same time.

jorblumesea3• 6 years ago

So the facts of the case are...

* Famous professor accepted money from China, then lied to authorities

* Famous professor also had DoD contracts which prohibit such connections without disclosure

* China is known for its IP transfer, strategic threats to both US power and democracy, and use of non-traditional intelligence sources, which is why such regulations about disclosure are required

Seems pretty reasonable. I'd imagine any government would want to know who they're working with before cutting them a check. If someone at AWS was moonlighting for Google Cloud, no one would bat an eye if they were fired, taken to court, and sued for everything they were worth.

gdy11• 6 years ago

How is China a strategic threat to 'democracy'? China isn't supporting 'color revolutions' of its own kind.

Brave-Steak3• 6 years ago

You must be willfully ignorant if you don't see all of China's work to influence Western countries in ways that are favourable to China, despite their despicable track record in ... I don't know, lots of things regarding human rights and individual freedoms.

And yeah, yeah. The US isn't perfect either, but I'm not afraid of the US using their influence to take away or undermine democracy in Germany.

sdinsn6• 6 years ago

China has stated that Western ideals like democracy are incompatible with their vision of the world. They have stated they will oppose democracy, everywhere, especially on other countries behalf.

qtplatypus7• 6 years ago

China has been making illegal donations to Australian politicians and bribing Japanese politicians.

mbreese• 6 years ago

A similar situation recently led to the firing of the leadership at Moffitt Cancer Center in Florida too.

https://www.tampabay.com/news/health/2019/12/18/moffitt-canc...

knzhou9• 6 years ago

Of course the guy should have disclosed everything to his funding sources, but from a scientist's viewpoint, the shock and outrage is confusing. Prominent scientists travel between institutions all the time, managing multiple groups -- it is common to see, on a senior professor's CV, appointments at 5 different institutes in 3 different countries (say, America, India, and Germany). That's a fundamental part of doing science. I benefit from it, and I pay it back by making all the notes and papers I produce freely available.

If the moral principle here is that countries shouldn't try to draw scientific talent from other countries, well, the United States is by far the greatest perpetrator of brain drain in the world. A lot of countries have been sucked dry by it, including China itself in the past!

If people are actually this worried about scientific knowledge crossing national borders, it won't stop with Prof. Lieber. They'll continue by banning textbook exports, taking down lecture videos, and raiding the Wikipedia servers. While they're at it, they can put up a Great Firewall of their own. That's the only direction I see this going.

mturmon4• 6 years ago

Note:

criminally charged with making "false, fictitious and fraudulent statements"...
In interviews with Defense Department investigators in 2018 and 2019, Lieber said that while he had heard of the Thousand Talents Plan, he had never been asked to be part of it...

The charge is not promiscuous collaboration, it's lying about it when asked.

If he indeed lied to DoD investigators following up on a possible conflict of interest, that would be a huge problem, on top of (we could guess) an original failure to disclose.

knzhou9• 6 years ago

As I said, he should have been clear with his funding sources. But that's not where the outrage in this thread is coming from -- everybody here is pissed off at the very idea of scientific collaboration crossing national borders. There are comparisons being drawn between doing science and waging war. This is saddening.

koheripbal7• 6 years ago

The underlying assumption here is that he was conducting research funded by the DoD and replicating it at his lab in China.

So.... espionage.

avocado4• 6 years ago

The guy downright lied about a huge financial incentive. There's no excuse or valid "America bad" angle to spin this.

It says the deal called for Lieber to be paid up to $50,000 a month, in addition to $150,000 per year "for living and personal expenses."

"Lieber was also awarded more than $1.5 million by WUT and the Chinese government to establish a research lab and conduct research at WUT," the document states.

For a large part of the time frame in question, Lieber was also the principal investigator on at least six U.S. Defense Department research grants, with a cumulative value of more than $8 million, according to the affidavit. It also says he was the principal investigator on more than $10 million in grants funded by the National Institutes of Health.

"These grants require the disclosure of significant foreign financial conflicts of interest, including financial support from foreign governments or foreign entities," the U.S. Attorney's Office in Massachusetts said in a statement announcing the charges against Lieber.

In interviews with Defense Department investigators in 2018 and 2019, Lieber said that while he had heard of the Thousand Talents Plan, he had never been asked to be part of it, according to the affidavit. Lieber's email correspondence suggests he signed a three-year agreement and employment contract with WUT in 2012.

"Lieber was obligated to work for WUT 'not less than nine months a year' by 'declaring international cooperation projects, cultivating young teachers and Ph.D. students, organizing international conference[s], applying for patents and publishing articles in the name of' WUT," the U.S. Attorney's Office said.

knzhou9• 6 years ago

Again, as I said, not being clear about everything to your funding sources is definitely bad. But the specific outrage doesn't make sense. What does it mean to have a "conflict of interest" and a "financial incentive" when you're doing basic science? Science isn't like working for a corporation or the military. The end goal is to publish your results for the entire world to see.

chasd002• 6 years ago

For people not US citizens or who have never dealt with the federal government it may be confusing. When the US federal government asks you a question about money and you lie, you are literally putting everything (career, freedom, family, life) in serious jeopardy. "Jeopardy" may not be the right word, it's basically just a matter of time before your conclusion is reached.

cowsandmilk• 6 years ago

I would be unsurprised if he was given several opportunities to come clean. He was arrested for lying over and over again. I’ve applied for and won government grants from both the NIH and DOD. There are clear places to list these conflicts in the application. There are additional times you are asked after you win a grant. And he is accused of then lying to a DOD investigator and investigators from the NIH.

He isn’t accused of any crimes for having a joint appointment. He is accused of lying about the fact that he had a joint appointment.

angry_octet5• 6 years ago

He knew he would lose US grants and access to labs if he was employed by the Chinese. But he wanted their money, so he lied to the US Govt systematically, and then directly when asked about it.

Obviously this behaviour is absolutely mad, and until you meet one of these huge ego guys is seems unlikely, but so many of them have a huge sense of their own importance.

One hopes that other prominent researchers will understand the lesson.

jariel2• 6 years ago

"If the moral principle here is that countries shouldn't try to draw scientific talent from other countries"

I think even the most nationalist and hawkish members of the elite/gov/administration fully understand the value of research and that it's international. The US missile and nuclear program were built by foreign, often formerly 'baddy' scientist after all.

At the same time, anything of strategic importance in China is tied to the state and therefore tied to all their other shifty activities.

The 'Red Scare' of the Cold War was based on very legitimate concerns, unfortunately, there were people who shouldn't have been dragged into the net caught up in it - and so this is the issue: how to act, where to draw the line, legal and moral legitimacy etc..

China speaks with one voice, the West speaks with a thousand voices (heads of state, research, government, military, NGO etc.) and they're playing a very aggressive game of 'divide and conquer' which warrants a ton of scrutiny.

Our job is to figure out how to counter the threat and to make tough decisions ... whilst minimizing damage, goodwill, and keeping an eye on some future where we all get along.

Unfortunately, I feel this tension may last a long time.

knzhou9• 6 years ago

Isn't it a strange coincidence that all of America's enemies (the Axis, the USSR, now China) "spoke with one voice"? This is just the well-known outgroup homogeneity bias [0]. Everyone lives in a bubble. You don't hear about other groups' internal divisions, but that doesn't mean they don't exist.

It's a subtle bias, but an insidious one. It has led to people reading my comments and thinking "His tone doesn't match up with the hysteria of the news article... so he must be a Communist party shill!" I wouldn't fare well in a second red scare; this is not a future to which I want to go.

0: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Out-group_homogeneity

hluska2• 6 years ago

When questioned, Lieber said he had never even heard of the “One Thousand Talent” program, yet he was earning a significant amount of money from that program. Moreover, the money he was paid was deposited into a Chinese bank account and given to him in cash.

He knew that he was lying about his associations and went to incredible depths to cover up this lie. No reasonable person would consider that collaboration. What’s with your pro-China bias?

knzhou9• 6 years ago

Because this wouldn't be national news if it were any country but China, and if things continue the way they're going, at best I'll get deported without cause. I know that I can't change any minds on a forum like this, where any comment that isn't fully critical is "biased", but I can't go without at least trying.

Brave-Steak3• 6 years ago

America, India, and Germany

These countries aren't geopolitical threats to each other in any sense. China is. That's basically it.

kermittd• 6 years ago

Eric Weinstein on the matter - https://twitter.com/ericrweinstein/status/122230320107390976...

refurb2• 6 years ago

Underpay? Top researchers at places like Harvard do very well from what I understand, especially if they consult on the side or sit on boards.

We’re talking several hundred thousand.

That’s not enough?

kube-system5• 6 years ago

"several hundred thousand" per year is a less than the $750,000 that China was willing to pay according to the article.

cat1993• 6 years ago

the comment says 'underpay ... relative to say Investment Bankers, VCs or mgmt consultants.'

the point as I see it is that if scientists are of strategic importance, they should be compensated accordingly to prevent the risk of bribery/defection - the same reason companies justify high pay to these other jobs to 'retain their talent'.

supernova87a• 6 years ago

Charlie Lieber is the head of the fucking Harvard Chemistry department. He's not lacking in prestige or pay, I guarantee you that.

ktln23• 6 years ago

Lieber requested that half of his money be deposited into a Chinese bank account and other half be paid to him in cash when he next visit WUT. https://twitter.com/gbrumfiel/status/1222217996959199234?s=2...

angry_octet5• 6 years ago

Amazing evidence that he knew it was illicit. Quite ironic too, considering how many Chinese are trying to get money out of China.

If he had started a company on the side (legal) then the Chinese could have bought it (legal) for a fortune. Lesson is, get legal advice!

cm21873• 6 years ago

But pretty much every western bank sends all bank details of US nationals to the US, under the threat of heavy penalty.

kaybe• 6 years ago

Have you tried getting money transfered internationally? At my level of understanding I can find many legit reasons for this course of action.

koheripbal7• 6 years ago

He literally had an operational lab in Wuhan at WUT, WHILE working on US DoD contracts.

...I mean, how blatant can you get?

paulsimon99• 6 years ago

Research shouldn’t be limited by politicians

cletus• 6 years ago

I consider it only a matter of time where the US will take the view that employing anyone born in mainland China, regardless of whether or not they're a US citizen, to be a security risk not worth taking for anything that requires security clearance or is otherwise sensitive or of national interest.

joe_the_user• 6 years ago

Well that is an interesting take. You might take a look at the Charles W. Lieber's photo and bio. He appears to be a white American. The wikipedia page doesn't say he wasn't born in China but still.

It seems like Lieber took his actions for money. If you are going to look at everyone potentially willing to sell out for money, you'll be doing a lot of looking.

sdinsn6• 6 years ago

I take it you did not read the article.

WiPo• 6 years ago

It must be one of his Chinese graduate students who went back to work as a faculty in Wuhan and made him that offer. Not surprised at all and actually this kind of bribery has been practiced at lot among Chinese American faculties. But IMO it’s not a severe national security issue though as most Nanotechnology paper are just BS and being published purely for the sake of fundings from NSF. So it’s really unwise to lie on that matter.

LatteLazy3• 6 years ago

10 years ago I was in academia. We were actively encouraged, even required, to find outside funding. Government would look at a bid for 1m and say "find 500k from someone else and we will match it". It was good practice.

Who were the people providing all that finding? The Chinese mostly.

Now we're in the middle of "sino-panic" and suddenly every cent (Renminbi?) is suspect.

I am happy to admit this guy was dishonest and deserves what he gets. But I worry this is the "thin end of the wedge". National security laws are draconian by design and aiming them at researchers continuing policies that were previously supported is both unfair and counterproductive.

To me, the whole China "thing" seems like a political witch hunt to avoid talking about real issues (impeachment, the 2020 elections, automation, the fact we have no idea what to do with all the people we can't find jobs for).

The weird claims about Huawei infrastructure falls into the same boat: picking a (cold) war to distract from other issues.

Beware where this goes.

philpem• 6 years ago

It does seem to harken back to McCarthyism when put in that context, doesn't it?

lidHanteyk• 6 years ago

It does. And as somebody who has harshly criticized Chinese domestic and foreign policy in the past on HN, I agree that cracking down on academics and technologists because of the behavior of their government is anti-intellectual and just as harmful here as it is there.

We need to simultaneously be vigilant against the dangers of other countries exploiting our confident and open stance, and also always keep our empathy for the people being oppressed by their states. I don't think that it's a balancing act, but a matter of dismantling the neoconservative and bleeding-heart-liberal mindsets, and finding a more holistic treatment of immigration and ethnic management; namely, less treatment. Over and over again, we interfere when our interests are violated, but avoid giving everybody a seat at the table when we re-assign the land; instead, we need to communicate more and interfere less.

...I'm going to have to think about this more, though, because as stated, this is a BDS strategy, and I'm not sure whether I endorse BDS strategies.

plandis• 6 years ago

I’m not really seeing the parallel. Unlike McCarthyism, this specific instance involves actual law breaking with enough factual basis that the government believes will result in a conviction.

silicon24013• 6 years ago

China has reached a point of influence where they are able to effect censorship within western countries. Do you not consider that a real issue?

https://bgr.com/2019/10/09/blizzard-hong-kong-ban-china-cens...

https://variety.com/2019/biz/news/china-censorship-nba-south...!

Over 20 companies: https://mashable.com/article/china-censorship-companies-hong...

LatteLazy3• 6 years ago

I don't see how that's relevant?

Also, I'm sure it's not you're intent, but questioning me about why I don't dislike China for reasons other than the things being discussed is pretty Mccarthy-esque... Am I not loyal unless I support this arrest?

lordlimecat• 6 years ago

We can focus on "real issues" while also recognizing the active espionage and cyber-warfare being conducted by the Chinese. Healthcare is a huge priority for them and it is not hard to find cases of them setting up state security agents as professors to induce masters and phd candidates to perform spying while working at e.g. NIH.

China's reputation for business and state espionage is not some racist or xenophobic trend; it comes from years of them performing said espionage.

LatteLazy3• 6 years ago

Can you link me to that case? It sounds very interesting but my Googlefu is weak...

xenophonf• 6 years ago

I don't understand why anyone would spy on the NIH. It isn't like they work in secret. Every bit of work done by their scientists and grant recipients will end up published in the appropriate journal.

koheripbal7• 6 years ago

My favorite Chinese cyber espionage story is the one that was just randomly found when a team was conducting a routine pen-test.

Darknet Diaries source: https://darknetdiaries.com/episode/21/

new2628• 6 years ago

You correctly observe that there is a fake-issue that distracts people, but then you suggest a number of other issues to focus on that could be just as distracting and seem just as fake as the first.

datashow4• 6 years ago

To me, the whole China "thing" seems like a political witch hunt to avoid talking about real issues (impeachment, the 2020 elections, automation, the fact we have no idea what to do with all the people we can't find jobs for).

The whole China thing started even before Trump got elected. Trump has been critical of China for decade: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1jdIshuoRBQ , Trump repeated this message in Primary: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cy9iY6CvAHU

The trade war started in 2017: https://www.china-briefing.com/news/the-us-china-trade-war-a...

FBI director stated China is No.1 threat in 2018: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fPi2uD__Ga8 , also: https://www.businessinsider.com/china-threat-to-america-fbi-...

No. It has nothing to do with impeachment or the 2020 election.

ktln23• 6 years ago

There are different types of fundings - some encourage you to find matching sponsors, some forbids you to do that explicitly.

feelthepress• 6 years ago

Re: Huawei

Remember Stanford physics professor Shoucheng Zhang?

"The close timing of Zhang’s death with the USTR report’s release — as well as the same-day arrest of the CFO of Huawei, a Chinese telecommunications company now under fire for sanctions fraud — has fueled doubt within Chinese media that the scientist’s death occurred of his own accord."

https://www.stanforddaily.com/2018/12/30/following-stanford-...

sdinsn6• 6 years ago

Excuse me- the DoD has always had rules about foreign financial interests. Yes, 10 years ago, they had these rules. Your comment is absolutely ridiculous and ignorant.

gumby2• 6 years ago

OK it does look like he commuted an actual crime (perjury/false affidavit).

But more broadly: how is humanity helped by not spreading around the knowledge of basic science and the interconnection between scientists? This is all relating to work that will be published in journals after all.

koheripbal7• 6 years ago

This guy was conducting DoD funded research, and then replicating that work secretly in a lab in China.

Literally espionage.

gumby2• 6 years ago

This guy was conducting DoD funded research, and then replicating that work secretly in a lab in China. Literally espionage.

I did not see the FBI alleging this publicly. It is not in their affidavit. He did lie on his forms to the DoD and that is legitimately a (non-espionage) crime.

DoD funding does not in itself make something a national secret. I did plenty of work funded by DARPA in my youth (during the cold war!) all of which could be publicly talked about and no classification or really any constraints were involved. I did later do cryptographic work but that was controlled by the Department of Commerce and was certainly more constrained than anything I worked on paid for by DoD.

I don't know Harvard's policy but at MIT since problems in the 60s, all classified work is supposed to be segregated into separate MIT-affiliated operations like Lincoln Labs, MITRE, Draper etc. It looked like distribution his work was controlled at most by the publishing cartel of Elsevier et al.

say_it_as_it_is• 6 years ago

the usual guilty until proven innocent..

Harvard scientist is arrested, accused of lying about ties to China

Related Stories